Adam Savage’s March for Science Speech

9 thoughts on “Adam Savage’s March for Science Speech”

1. I might be in the UK and therefore mostly viewing things from the outside but I was still thoroughly moved by this speech, properly stunning. Know that you have the support of a great many outside your borders in the battle against bias! Stay the course America.

   Reply

2. Bias is a funny thing. Even talking about it doesn’t necessarily make one aware of it. For example, there’s a bias in Adam’s speech
   that assumes “science” is somehow equally applicable, like some sort
   of mathematical theorem, to perfectly address every human scenario. “Evidence based policies” to
   address “institutional racism?” Only someone completely oblivious to his own bias would pretend
   something like this is a reasonable statement. What are the details of such a policy? Does it fall along the lines of “Disparate Impact”, the policy
   that folks like Eric Holder (former Attorney General) pushed? If so, how is that scientific? How is it
   tested? What evidence supports it?

   In fact, the idea that public policy should be determined by
   facts and research is simply not a realistic concept whether one is on the
   right or the left. Heather MacDonald put
   forward a book chock full of statistics and numbers to look at police abuse along
   racial lines (her findings claimed police were by and large not exhibiting
   institutional racism). Leftists, who
   disagree with her, didn’t respond by having debates but rather by violently
   protesting her public speaking and getting her shut down. Likewise, mild-mannered Charles Murray, who
   actually spent the last year before the recent election publicly explaining why
   he thought Donald Trump was grossly incompetent to be President, is now being
   violently protested, prevented from publicly speaking, and called
   “literally Hitler” – yet no one is engaging with his very evidence
   based work (in fact, I’d bet good money that none of the idiots protesting his
   interview knew the first thing about his book or his work). James Watson, the Nobel Prize winning molecular
   biologist who co-discovered the structure of DNA has been blacklisted because
   he pointed out links, which he arrived at through evidence based testing,
   between DNA and intelligence. (and we’re
   talking about an anti-Vietnam war protesting atheist who considers racism
   abhorrent – this is not some sort of evangelical right winger). I’m not saying whether I agree or disagree
   with any of these three examples – I point to them to highlight that when it
   comes to the topic of “race” there is no such thing as calm,
   rational, evidence-based discourse on either side. The position is, “you either blindly
   agree with me or you are literally Hitler/an anti-White Communist” – and
   there’s no room in that rhetoric for facts.

   The “left” is just as hostile to real science and
   evidence as the “right” – any facts that disturb bias cause anguish,
   and anyone daring to point out those facts instantly becomes persona non
   gratis. The idea that
   “science” is some sort of “super-religion” that will cure
   human irrationality if only all people worship at its altar is inane. Plenty of French Revolutionaries declared
   their allegiance to Rational Thought and Liberty while slaughtering people by
   the thousands (and ultimately even the architects fell prey to their own
   creation – just ask Robespierre). “Science”, at least the way Adam is talking about it, is being
   set up to be just another excuse for one group of people to claim moral superiority
   over those who disagree with them so that they can be justified in mercilessly
   grinding their opponents’ faces into the dirt. (i.e. My policy is the right one because it’s Scientific!) Just ask the Antifa folks who I’m sure are
   just itching to get into scientific debates as soon as they’re done violently
   assaulting people and committing acts of vandalism.

   The idea that “science” holds all the answers is
   just as superstitious as the most arcane religious dogmas. At its heart is a complete misunderstanding
   of human reality, something that reduces human complexity to a completely false
   simplicity.

   Reply

3. Science doesn’t hold all of the answers, just more of them.

   Reply

4. I disagree with your overall judgment of the left and right.

   I fully support the idea that the far-left is just as bad with facts as the far-right.

   But the moderate right tends to be far more anti-fact than the moderate left.

   I would say, however, that this COULD just be an illusion. Given the political landscape currently existing in the u.s. there are very, VERY few true moderate conservatives in the public eye.

   Perhaps there are a majority of fact-based , logical conservatives in the public…but they certainly aren’t voting for people that are the same way.

   Reply

5. Science can only answer the questions science knows how to answer. You wouldn’t look to William Shakespeare for instructions to build a rocket ship or molecular diagrams. Likewise, there are many subjects that science (and I am using the popular meaning behind the term which restricts “science” to the physical sciences) simply has nothing valid to say. Alas, many of those subjects happen to be pretty important when it comes to human beings and human relations.

   Reply

6. Personally, I think it’s safe to throw out the entire left/right dichotomy on this subject. The reality is that most folks (regardless of branding) are not really very interested in science. At least, not in terms of serious, rational thinking and theorizing focused on cold hard data. Many often mistake either an infatuation with the products of science (i.e. I like iPhones and modern medicine) or an interest in things that popular culture has erroneously labeled as “science-y” (i.e. Star Trek, Bill Nye) with an interest in actual, real science. Given how few people actually attend real scientific lectures or read actual scientific books, the overall percentage of folks who generally appreciate and enjoy science is pretty small. Perhaps more of this very small percentage is on the left, but I doubt it would be in terms large enough to really matter. I stand by my statement that you can make a room full of people (including “moderates”) explode into irrational hysterics simply by introducing facts that contradict their ideological positions (whether they be on the right or left). To think that “evidence-based” policies is the solution is to have no real experience with human beings who could give a fig about one’s “evidence.”

   Regarding the idea that “moderates” on the right are anti-Science – be careful not to oversimplify. Many folks on the “right” are

   1.) suspicious of anything a politician says especially if he stands to make money by it (nobody on the right believes in the sincerity of Al Gore, regardless of how authentic the science might be behind his position),

   2.) distrustful of actual scientists believing that they are not good stewards of taxpayer money and would happily spend a billion dollars chasing some arcane experiment which may or may not have any useful results,

   3.) suspicious that scientists may not actually know as much as they claim to know (which, given the complexity of certain problems and the long history of scientists getting things wrong, usually while in a large consensus, is not such a ludicrous idea), or

   4.) simply have much more immediate concerns that take precedence over government funding/regulation of scientific issues.

   This is what I find most dishonest in the way the March for Science and other like-minded events portray their opposition. It’s not as if large groups of folks said, “I hate that thar science – it is the worst. I’ll vote for Trump so that he can get rid of that thar dumb ole science.” While most folks aren’t really all that interested in science (either on the right or left), very few people are actually AGAINST science. Just like the vast majority of folks murdered during the French Revolution weren’t AGAINST Liberty or Reason. It’s a Red Herring, and it’s one that conveniently makes one side appear to be morally superior to the other.

   Reply

7. Ok, sure, I’ll bite.

   No, you’re right, you wouldn’t go looking for how to build a rocket ship in Shakespeare. I have no idea why you’re limiting science to just physical, since there’s also social science, psychological science, and theoretical math. Each of these is based on general curiosity, framing a question, and then discovering the answer. Sometimes the answer is what you expect, sometimes it’s not, which leads to more questions, which lead to more answers, and even more questions.

   The wonder of science is that it provides us a way to discover both questions and answers we had no idea even existed.

   Yes, there are questions that can’t be answered by science, (well, maybe philosophy) but that doesn’t discard the value of the field. My car makes a pretty terrible boat, but I still find it useful.

   As for concerns regarding people, I’ll note that neuroscience has done a fantastic job. I recommend the delightful books and podcasts “You Are Not So Smart” which show you the many ways that science has shown us how our brains deceive and delude themselves because of all sorts of evolutionary or biological tendencies.

   I’ll also take slight issue with your argument regarding folks interest in popular science. What you describe is called the “Backfire Effect” and is well documented. It’s slightly humorous, because it’s a product of bias, which Mr. Savage discusses in his talk. The problem that the March for Science addressed was that there has been a rejection of science in favor of bias, possibly due to the same Backfire Effect. A quick look at recent news shows how the current administration is removing established scientists leading efforts at the EPA, and citing replacements with industry executives.

   That’s not exactly unbiased and is concerning, much the same way that I would oppose removing those people in favor of philosophers or writers of literature.

   To your point, just as I wouldn’t use Shakespeare to build a rocket, I don’t want a lit major in charge of your drinking water.

   Reply

8. No need to bite – I’m not trying to bait anyone.

   I think you’ve misread me on a few points. Please allow me to clarify. I’m not, by any means, trying to discredit science. I obviously recognize its tremendous value. I just understand that its value lies only within its realm (i.e. the car is very useful on land, but it really isn’t much use in water). While I get my water from my own well (free of any government regulation) I recognize there is very much a value in regulation of that type governed by scientific principles.

   Also, when I say “physical science” I’m using what I thought was common parlance – a reference to sciences bound by the natural material world (i.e. not the classic idea of science which included Theology, Philosophy, Metaphysics, and the like). Even among these sciences of the natural material world there are divisions between hard sciences (i.e. physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, micro-economics…etc.) and the soft sciences (i.e. sociology, psychology, anthropology, macro-economics…etc.). Even among scientists the relative value of the softer sciences is dubious. If you get 10 sociologists to look at a problem, as a variation on the old wheeze goes, you’ll get 11 different answers.

   Ultimately, the point I’m trying to make is two fold. First, most folks actually aren’t interested in science. You’re citing of the “Backfire Effect” doesn’t change my point, it only confirms it. I’m just pointing out that the “Backfire Effect” is just as applicable to so-called leftists as it is with so-called rightists. Pushing for “evidence” based government policies fails to realize that the so-called “evidence” is often not really something easily agreed upon or something either side is really ready to engage with on a rational level (again, we can talk about race or abortion and you can watch liberals go just as bananas as conservatives do when we talk about global warming). Adam and many of the Marchers are just as guilty of this kind of bias as are the folks he is accusing of being biased. If the goal of the March is to push back against the “Backfire Effect” I would say it fails miserably as it’s entire presentation only sharpens the dichotomy of “it’s us smarties vs. you baddies.” Not persuasive and only self-confirming of the Marchers own bias.

   The second part is that science, in and of itself, is only partly useful when it comes to human affairs. You say science can give us many answers and even more questions that we didn’t know we had, which is true, but I’m talking about a questions and answers of a different kind, not degree. Science spends an awful lot of time answering “how” but almost never answers “why.” Many scientists often mistakenly think that if you uncover a deeper level of “how” that can serve as a “why”, but it doesn’t. Neuroscience, at its best, can answer many questions of “how” but not many on “why.” When it comes to the mysteries of what lies in the human heart, you’ll actually get closer to an answer with Hamlet or Lear than with any modern scientist, and I suggest that type of knowledge is equally if not more important to consider when looking at “government policy” which is intended to govern humans.

   If you want a very enjoyable book on this, I heartily recommend Walker Percy’s “Lost in the Cosmos.” He also loved science, but he clearly saw its limitations when it comes to using it to understand humans (at heart irrational and immaterial creatures). If you haven’t read it, it really is delightful. Although it does handle some mature themes, so hopefully I’m recommending it to someone who is age appropriate.

   Reply

9. Ah, I think we are both in some agreement, then. I’ll concede that science needs ethicists. Of course, that introduces a rather large set of variables regarding those biases, but in an ideal (if not a frictionless vacuum), they should point out the concerns and urge caution. I’ll also concede that there are many organizations that either do not listen, or worse, discard those concerns rather than engage and discuss.

   Like many things, life is a balance of moderation and compromise. Sadly, I feel that there’s been precious little of either of those.

   Where I feel that we will continue to disagree is that I feel that science is and has always been political. It’s a resource like oil or land, which requires investments and returns profits. There are lots of reasons why science has avoided politics, but as we’ve seen, politics has never avoided science. I feel that needs to change.

   Thanks for the book recommendation. I look forward to reading it.

   Reply